I have no problem with protests, but they're kind of stupid anyways. It's not protesting anything about our current situation or any particular laws of the country afaik. It's protesting the state of humanity in general. Economic inequality. Great. Can you be more vague? With goals like that, then fat chance in changing anything. Much.

I agree the fact that it's currently leaderless and nebulous is a problem. However, one could also argue that favoring apathy is partly how the rest of us contributed to this problem in the first place. And the fact that it is currently a bit nebulous doesn't mean it will stay that way. This could be the beginning of something we desperately need.

This is supposed to be a free and enterprising country. Instead it's becoming very corrupt, and the disappearance of the middle class in NOT a good trend. Huge disparities between the rich and the poor are characteristic of third world countries. Obviously we're not that bad yet, but heading in that direction is NOT a positive change. We at least need more transparency, and probably the reinstatement of some key regulations that have been removed.

...a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protestcorporate influence on democracy, address a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis

"Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."

The protest has been criticized for lack of focus and actionable agenda. In an article that was critical of the protesters, Ginia Bellafante wrote in The New York Times:
"The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgeably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face – finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out."[38][39]

Glenn Greenwald responded to this criticism, writing,
"Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?"[40]

On October 8, the New York Times released an editorial statement, expressing their official stance on the demand debate:
"It is not the job of the protesters to draft legislation. That’s the job of the nation’s leaders, and if they had been doing it all along there might not be a need for these marches and rallies. Because they have not, the public airing of grievances is a legitimate and important end in itself."[41]

On October 12, the Washington Post interviewed Kalle Lasn about how he sees the global revolution playing out and the criticism of the movement being leaderless and for having no focus. He replied:
"The initial phase of the revolution, what we are seeing right now, is leaderless, and the protesters are not hopping into bed with any party, even the Democratic party...As the winter approaches, I think there will be different phases and ideas, possibly fragmentation into different agendas. I think crystal-clear demands will emanate... The messy, leaderless, demandless movement has launched a national conversation of the likes that we haven’t had in 20 years. That’s as good as it gets! Not every one needs to have a leader with clear demands. That’s the old way of launching revolutions. This revolution is run by the Internet generation, with egalitarian ways of looking at things, and an inclusive process of getting everyone involved. That’s the magic of it."

The protesters include persons of a variety of political orientations, including liberals, political independents, anarchists, socialists, libertarians, conservatives, and environmentalists. At the protest's start, the majority of the demonstrators were young, however, as the protest grew the age of the protesters has become more diverse, mostly related to the use of social networks. Religious beliefs are diverse as well.

(I also posted some of these in the other thread, I apologize if you already read it in the other thread.)

Not to say that I'm a fan of corruption (I'm not), but I don't think anyone should be acting like it's some kind of new development or that it's ever going to go away completely. Furthermore, while some people out there have noble intentions, there are a lot of people that simply want something for nothing. There's an unfortunately common American trait for you.

"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

Not to say that I'm a fan of corruption (I'm not), but I don't think anyone should be acting like it's some kind of new development or that it's ever going to go away completely.

I don't think anyone is foolish enough to say that corruption is a new development. What is a new development, however, is the degree of complicity that our particular government presently exercises with the corrupt practices of greedy people. These are things that can be changed for the better, even if one cannot expect to eradicate the root of it in human behavior.

Originally Posted by Metamorphosis

Furthermore, while some people out there have noble intentions, there are a lot of people that simply want something for nothing. There's an unfortunately common American trait for you.

Indeed, which is why the biggest welfare mothers (the Wall Street set) need to be kept in check.